9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For R
Source: International Business Times
[font face="ariel"]9/11 Link To Saudi Arabia Is Topic Of 28 Redacted Pages In Government Report; Congressmen Push For Release[/font]
Since terrorists attacked the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, victims’ loved ones, injured survivors, and members of the media have all tried without much success to discover the true nature of the relationship between the 19 hijackers – 15 of them Saudi nationals – and the Saudi Arabian government. Many news organizations reported that some of the terrorists were linked to the Saudi royals and that they even may have received financial support from them as well as from several mysterious, moneyed Saudi men living in San Diego.
Saudi Arabia has repeatedly denied any connection, and neither President George W. Bush nor President Obama has been forthcoming on this issue.
But earlier this year, Reps. Walter B. Jones, R-N.C., and Stephen Lynch, D-Mass., were given access to the 28 redacted pages of the Joint Intelligence Committee Inquiry (JICI) of 9/11 issued in late 2002, which have been thought to hold some answers about the Saudi connection to the attack.
"I was absolutely shocked by what I read," Jones told International Business Times. "What was so surprising was that those whom we thought we could trust really disappointed me. I cannot go into it any more than that. I had to sign an oath that what I read had to remain confidential. But the information I read disappointed me greatly."...
Read more: http://www.ibtimes.com/911-link-saudi-arabia-topic-28-redacted-pages-government-report-congressmen-push-release-1501202
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Think of all the good you could do.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Here's something I don't get.
I see three plausible scenarios:
1. Osama did it, and the Muslim world approves
2. Osama did it, and the Muslim world disapproves
3. Osama didn't do it, and the Muslim world knows it
In cases 2 and 3, why doesn't some sheikh write a check for $20 million or so and make a gorgeous feature film saying Islam is a religion of peace, 9/11 was anti-Islamic, and Osama a) had-no-right-to do it or b) didn't do it.
In case 1, why doesn't some anonymous person make a gorgeous feature film saying yes, he did it because it was the only way of getting your attention, and here's why he did it.
Instead all we get is silence.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)Yes, because the Muslim world isn't composed of individuals with varying views and life experience...
Do they hold meetings and vote on what the Muslim world thinks, or do they require someone like you to come along and tell them what they all think?
Your whole post was a waste. "The Muslim world" doesn't hold one single view on 9/11 any more than the Christian world does. Do you see?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:48 PM - Edit history (2)
I was talking about rich Muslims who are in a position to make a film.
Instead of a variety of views, all we get is silence.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)...that has multiple references to what "the Muslim world" thinks.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 03:48 PM - Edit history (2)
I still don't understand why no rich Muslim has a strong enough opinion that he or she wants to share it.
I mean, it's not like the entire western world has to get together and achieve consensus before Robert Greenwald can make a film.
I would like to know how many in the Muslim world think Osama did it and approve of that, how many think he did it and disapprove, how many think he didn't do it, and how many have an opinion I haven't thought of yet.
In Egypt only 16% think al Qaeda did 9/11 and 12% think the USA did themselves.
In Jordan only 11% think al Qaeda did 9/11 and 17% think the USA did themselves.
In Palestine 42% think al Qaeda did 9/11 and 27% think the USA did themselves.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/535.php
A couple of years ago a poll in Afghanistan showed that 92% of the men had never heard of 9/11.
http://www.juancole.com/2010/11/southern-afghans-have-never-heard-of-911.html
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)no one wanted to cash it. Wonder why?
Do you remember how our media went around the world, right after 9/11, showing Muslims "celebrating?" Because we all know that a few fundie/radical Muslims speaks for all moderate Muslims, right? I don't recall our media being balanced on outpourings of solidarity for the Americans killed. A few years later, Cheney/Bush made sure that moderate Muslim voices were marginalized. Mission Accomplished!
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)
warrant46
(2,205 posts)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...the Carlyle Group is expected to be awarded a billion dollar contract by the US Government to help in the redevelopment of airfields and urban areas destroyed by Coalition aerial bombardments.
The Group is managed by a team of former US Government personnel including its president Frank Carlucci, former deputy director of the CIA before becoming Defence Secretary. His deputy is James Baker II, who was Secretary of State under George Bush senior. Several high profile former politicians are employed to represent the company overseas, among them John Major, former British Prime Minister, along with George Bush senior, one time CIA director before becoming US President.
The financial assets of the [font color="darkred"]Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC)[/font] are also managed by the Carlyle Group. The SBC is headed up by members of Osama bin Laden’s family, who played a principle role in helping George W. Bush win petroleum concessions from Bahrain when he was head of the Texan oil company, Harken Energy Corporation - a deal that was to make the Bush family millions of dollars. Salem, Osama bin Laden’s brother, was represented on Harken’s board of directors by his American agent, James R. Bath.
The connection between the Bush and bin Laden families can also be traced to the collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the 1990s. Members of the Anglo Pakistani bank’s board of directors included Richard Helms and William Casey, business partners of George Bush senior and former CIA agents. During their time at BCCI both Helms and Casey worked alongside fellow director, Adnan Khasshoggi, who also represented the bin Laden family’s interests in the US.
The Portugal News has been told by a reliable source that the Carlyle Group meeting in Lisbon will discuss the relationship between the [font color="darkred"]Saudi Binladen Corporation (SBC)[/font] and Osama bin Laden. Many US officials claim that the [font color="darkred"]SBC[/font] continues to finance his political activities, and has done so for many years. If true, this would place George Bush senior and his colleagues at the Carlyle Group in an embarrassing position. As managers of SBC’s financial investments they might well be accused of indirectly aiding and abetting the United States’ number one enemy.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)
eridani
(51,907 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
riverbendviewgal
(4,252 posts)probably the link between Chene, Bush and the Saudis for profit.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)and their multi-generation relationship with the Saudi Royal family was behind it all the way.
Texas = Oil
Saudi Arabia = Oil
Iraq war = Oil
Cheney = Halliburton & Brown & Root = Oil & Construction
Saudi Arabia = 6% Stakeholder in NewsCorp ( Fox News )
Follow the money.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)loudsue
(14,087 posts)And ya know what? I don't think the Saudi people are all that in love with their royal family. But you know the royal family hates Americans....hell, we even let our women drive cars!!!
lark
(23,097 posts)The bin Ladens' that were flown out of America on 9/11 so that the fbi couldn't interview them and find out they were partners with the Bushes/Cheney's in planning this atrocity - those folks?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Senior stayed at the WH the night before, while Jr. was in Florida. IIRC, Bush, Sr. hightailed it out of DC and went to Wisconsin(?) later that day. Probably didn't like the optics of that moment....
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)PNAC's first public action:
Signed by the following members of the Bush Administration:
- Rumsfeld
- Wolfowitz
- Perle
- Bolton
- Abrams
- Armitage
- Woolsey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)was Randi Rhodes...she would talk about these documents and use the term "bawdy ababia" to discuss which country was redacted.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)Larry King interviewing country singer Toby Keith told a story
On the morning of 9/11 Keith was in Kentucky bidding on a horse. There was a Saudi Prince also bidding.
Government cars and security officers came and took the Saudi Prince away.
Keith didn't know why.
He went into the house and saw the TV and saw what had just happened in NY.
The Saudi was taken to safety as soon as the first plane hit.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Randi was talking specifically about the redacted documents mentioned here....She had this conversation with someone who actually read the unredacted version...I believe it was former Senator Bob Graham! He was not allowed to reveal it...so Randi referred to it as "Bawdy Ababia".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)“I am convinced that there was a direct line between at least some of the terrorists who carried out the September 11th attacks and the government of Saudi Arabia,” former Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, said in an affidavit filed as part of a lawsuit brought against the Saudi government and dozens of institutions in the country by families of Sept. 11 victims and others. Mr. Graham led a joint 2002 Congressional inquiry into the attacks.
His former Senate colleague, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, a Democrat who served on the separate 9/11 Commission, said in a sworn affidavit of his own in the case that “significant questions remain unanswered” about the role of Saudi institutions. “Evidence relating to the plausible involvement of possible Saudi government agents in the September 11th attacks has never been fully pursued,” Mr. Kerrey said.
Their affidavits, which were filed on Friday and have not previously been disclosed, are part of a multibillion-dollar lawsuit that has wound its way through federal courts since 2002. An appellate court, reversing an earlier decision, said in November that foreign nations were not immune to lawsuits under certain terrorism claims, clearing the way for parts of the Saudi case to be reheard in United States District Court in Manhattan. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=0
indepat
(20,899 posts)can't help but wonder who all were part of a conspiracy, if any. 
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)indepat
(20,899 posts)promote the vast profitability of bidness, in part, by a preposterously low effective bidness tax rate and a preposterously low minimum wage that is so low that government has to subsidize those working for bidness at the lower end of the wage scale. This American-styled fascism is all so simply implemented and easy to understand.
Berlum
(7,044 posts)It is a darkside pox upon the US of A.
Raksha
(7,167 posts)I haven't heard this story before. Obviously I never saw the Larry King interview either. Thanks for the information.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Interesting how the feds can be proactive when they want to--for instance I believe the FBI team that went to investigate Paul Wellstone's plane crash actually left Minneapolis before Wellstone's plane took off from Minneapolis.
But when it comes to following around two known al Qaeda agents to see what they're up to and who they're up to it with--when al Qaeda's plot to fly hijacked airliners into the WTC has been known since 1995 and when those two agents have bought TEN airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their own real names (or so says Bob Woodward)--they can't seem to get it together. Government incompetence, don't you know.
To be fair, I'd like to know the timeline on this story. Very possibly the FBI were already keeping a protective eye on the bin Ladens in Kentucky to keep them safe from local bigots and, if so, then as soon as they heard on the radio about an attack on the WTC they might phone the guy who was assigned to watch them and tell him to move them.
mainstreetonce
(4,178 posts)I posted that story on a board once before and I believe someone was able to go back in Larry King transcripts and check it out.
Baitball Blogger
(46,703 posts)So, maybe Iraq was the target all along?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Cheney had those secret energy policy meetings in the Spring of 2001...the ones that we can't see who attended and what were the topics of discussion. Except for one map that clearly showed Iraq getting divvied up amongst a number of big oil companies.
So 15 of 19 hijackers were Saudis. What was the US response?
(1) Give the Royal Family, including bin Ladens, free passage out of the country while no one else could fly.
(2) Exit all US Saudi military bases.
(3) Take out SA's #1 threat - Hussein/Iraq. Iraq/Hussein had no connection with the 9/11 bombing.
(4) Disrupt the flow of Iraqi oil onto the world markets, thus making SA's product increase in value.
I don't know...seems like one big "quid pro quo" that involved the House of Saud, Big Oil, and the Bush administration.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)but it does seem awfully strange that dozens of Saudi royals, bin Laden relatives, etgc., would flee the country en masse during the week or so after Nineleven(TM). 
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)that's their official line.
Could this be this generation's Warren Commission?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Only about 8 people believe the 9/11 Commision and all of them will tell me I'm wrong.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)I'll bet the 28 pages would clear allot of things up.
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)(5) Take out Bush and put Cheney in his place, but Bush went to Florida.
Or maybe
(5) They were wrong about White House, and it was supposed to hit the Capital?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)The hijackers probably liked Tom Clancy's 'Debt of Honor'....I believe both 93 and 77 were late getting off the ground. See 77's rather odd flightpath around Kentucky...had both plans been on time, I think all 4 would have hit their targets on time with no one left wondering why the USAF was MIA. And there'd have been no Congress to stop Cheney/Bush from taking total control of the government.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)These documents, if ever revealed, will probably show at the least that the Iraq invasion was knowingly built on a litany of lies which started LONG before Colin Powell's dog-and-pony show before the United Nations...
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)But so many of us were so emotionally set on war. and so many of us who wanted to see better evidence were silent, and there's been a propaganda campaign for decades now causing us to diss the UN.
Even so-called liberals diss the UN and seem to have forgotten the fact war is legal only in the case of self-defense or when authorized by the UN. I wish we could learn the clear lessons from this history, but willful blindness seems to be epidemic these days.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...fear of being labeled "unpatriotic."
If you recall, most of those in leadership roles (Rep. and Dem.) and those who reported on them felt handcuffed, and would rarely express dissent -- and when they did so, it was in the most cryptic of terms.
Such was the chilling nature of rhetoric coming from the WH. ...And such was the atmosphere established which allowed for the passage of The 'Patriot' Act -- the single most un-American piece of legislation passed in modern times.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)in Cheney's "secret" energy meetings that were started very early in their administration...probably about 5 minutes after the inauguration. I wonder if there isn't linkage to these secret meetings...
<
>
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)We have the official story. There is no need for further investigation. There is no need to re-hash what our elected officials have told us. They have our best interests in mind. They would not deceive us. Belief in any theory that varies from the official account is discouraged; the thinking has already been done for you. Just believe. Trust. Obey.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 06:55 PM - Edit history (1)
Those coincidence theorists who smear so-called truthers by mislabeling them and trying to equate them with Birthers are a disgusting lot and do our democracy a disservice as they enable high crimes. This isn't about typing on a birth certificate. It's about an event we were told would have to change our whole way of life forever and allow the government and corporate contractors into every aspect of our private life to controls us. Stop conflating the two and do something constructive to bring us back out humanity.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)so this is just more potential evidence that the "Truthers" are wrong. And since they have already been proven to be spectacularly wrong on just about everything, we didn't need any more evidence.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)not interested in justice for the families and the victims, not interested in the proposition that in an Open Society the people have the right to know about the events that changed their lives and their culture.
It seems that as you see it, there's the Official Story, and there's the "Truthers'" story, and if the "Truthers" are wrong, then we should have no concern about whether the official story is true or not.
Is that an unfair characterization of your position--or simply a brutally clear one?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)And spot on
Ezlivin
(8,153 posts)generally claim that the official story is wrong. Nearly all of them would like to see a new investigation take place and the investigators given the power to subpoena.
If you believe the official story, why not relax? Take it easy. You know the truth. It was given to you by our trusty public servants. You can take comfort in your belief that you were not lied to and mislead. Why waste your time even discussing alternate theories or those who create them?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)I believe what the evidence tells. Saying that the US Government lied about facts concerning 9-11 is an assumed but important fact that the truthers have not uncovered and they deserve no credit what-so ever.
"Truthers" don't believe in the evidence. They have a religious faith-based belief on how 9-11 went down and no amount of evidence is sufficient to change their opinion.
This news concerning Saudi involvement is consistent with what many believe about 9-11 and totally inconsistent with the Truthers' made up nonsense.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)official story = obvious BS. Dunno what happened, do know the event has been totally exploited and is still serving to instill obedience-inducing fear of terra terra in people. So the truth needs to come to light. Glad to see a push for it from such unsuspect (well, you know what I mean) quarters as US politicians.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)So if you want to know what happened your beliefs should be consistent with known facts.
This news concerning Saudi involvement contradicts most claims made by truthers. But since we already knew about Saudi involvement in 9-11, it is impossible for any more news concerning Saudi involvement to make the truthers any more wrong than they already are.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You don't seem to care about getting to the truth.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)you're a no-truther. As you don't really want to know. An anti-truther...
barbtries
(28,789 posts)call me a "truther" the way wingnuts call me a liberal - as if it's a dirty word. i want the truth and i know i haven't learned it yet.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)including many BS claims concerning how 9-11 went down. To claim that the government lied is not a significant breakthrough. Since when haven't any government lied?
Truthers' claims generally completely contradict this OP. This OP completely supports what I, and many others, believe about 9-11.
The Bush Administration covered up for the Saudis, who were the culprits on 9-11, and they blamed the Afghans and more importantly the Iraqis. "Truthers" help the Bush Administration by claiming the Saudis weren't involved.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts).... loaded on him or her by cpwm.
A Truther is someone who wants to truth about what happened about 9/11, and is not willing (as cwpm is) to accept lies as the normal state of affairs.
What "Truthers" claim the Saudis weren't involved? Do any of these alleged truthers have names? And when did you become an expert on what Truthers believe?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)no matter how incorrect it is.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...vilify selected groups while other rhetoric is put in place to create an emotional bond?
I'm suspicious of any whose agenda attempts to put the truth, and those who seek it, in a bad light. I am equally suspicious of those who attempt to put lipstick on what is clearly a pig.
For example, Vietnam War protestes were call by V.P. Agnew, "...an effete corps of impudent snobs who characterize themselves as intellectuals.". Conversely Reagan called the Mujahideen, "freedom fighters" (& the CIA backed them, including Bin Laden, with arms & finances).
When I hear the term "truther" it always causes me to question the intellectual honesty of the user of the term, rather than the target thereof. Does this resonate with you?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)They are poorly named. They ignore actual evidence. They ignore actual science. They don't use common sense.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)As I recall, they co-opted the name the same way Obama co-opted "Obamacare." If I'm wrong about this point I'll accept the criticism.
As for your assertions that,"They ignore actual evidence. They ignore actual science. They don't use common sense.", Wow! Can't you hear how revolting is your grand over-generalization and obvious contempt? As if to backup my earlier point, such negatively charged prejudicial speech says far more about you the speaker than the objects of your blanket attempt at character assassination.
I'll also add that since your assertions are rooted in base emotion rather than logical argument -- there is no logical reason for any objective observer to give your thoughts a modicum of consideration, let alone credibility.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)or any other place where truthers hang out. They make claim after claim that is demonstrably false (their level of crazy would be funny if it weren't true) and almost the only people that correct them are non-truthers:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135
A frequent claim by truthers is that the Saudis weren't involved. That would contradict your OP. Your OP has nothing to do with the truthers and is consistent with what many others believe (correctly in my opinion) about the Bush Administration during their quest for war.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...http://www.911truth.org where many very reasonable and respectable professionals have presented cogent and well documented volumes of investigative work which contradict the official version of events.
Sure, there are rabid conspiratorialists around who won't listen to reason; but I've seen much of the opposite as well -- people who refuse to evaluate solid contradictory evidence because, in their arrogance, they are dismissive of anything which doesn't fit into their entrenched position.
I think it's unwise to over-generalize regarding either camp; wouldn't you agree?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)such as:
"the demolition-like collapse of the Twin Towers and of a third skyscraper, WTC 7"
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)You don't see any resemblance?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 11:26 PM - Edit history (1)
That's just nuts. Actual scientists have studied the collapses in detail and they understand why they collapsed like they did. But "truthers make extremely far-fetched claims and ignore science. Their methods are identical to the creationists.
At first the self-described "truthers" claimed that the two towers collapsed too neatly into their own footprints (LOL) which allegedly too much resembled controlled demolitions. That claim is less common now, for obvious reasons. Now many claim that the towers' collapses were too messy and they must have been taken down by large (but strangely not audible on videos) explosions. So no matter how they collapsed, they were going to claim demolition.
Truthers then transfered many of their favorite arguments from the towers to WTC7, which was struck hard by WTC1 and collapsed by the large and uncontrolled fires. They didn't want their old arguments to go to waste.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)You said, "911Truth.org loses all credibility when they promote nonsense such as: 'the demolition-like collapse of the Twin Towers and of a third skyscraper, WTC 7.' "
I asked, and still ask -- do you see any resemblance (between the fall of the towers & a demolition)?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 12, 2013, 08:19 PM - Edit history (1)
including towards the center of mass of the earth. The towers and all buildings demolished in demolitions must follow this known law of gravity. When demolished, a building will fall down towards the center of mass of the earth. The larger, taller, more massive, and less solid the building, the more vertical the collapse will be. Plus collapse direction is also influenced by the nature of the damage, of course.
My response pointed out how truthers are determined to make the collapses appear to be demolitions. That's the point of my second paragraph in my response:
At first the self-described "truthers" claimed that the two towers collapsed too neatly into their own footprints (LOL) which allegedly too much resembled controlled demolitions. That claim is less common now, for obvious reasons. Now many claim that the towers collapses were too messy and they must have been taken down by large (but strangely not audible on videos) explosions. So no matter how they collapsed, they were going to claim demolition.
They saw the towers collapse in the direction of gravity and determined that they looked like controlled demolitions, even though they made contradictory observations about the collapses. (it's obvious my answer is no)
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)For a relatively light body (the top structure of the towers) to fall through the path of greatest resistance (the much more heavily-constructed lower body of the towers) rather than find its way to a path of lesser resistance (falling off) raises a lot of suspicions for those versed in the fundamental laws of physics.
The government agency charged with explaining why and how the towers collapsed claims that it did not analyze the collapses. Well why the hell not? Was it because their preliminary analysis revealed politically incorrect truths?
Democracy needs honest and complete investigations. The lack of same furthers the nihilistic cynicism that has captured this land.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)From what I remember, the bulk of people versed in the fundamental laws of physics that I knew at the time of the collapses were not actually surprised by the nature of the collapses. It has not changed much since then.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)One structural engineer has quite a touching story--the engineers in his small firm were watching TV that morning, and when the first tower fell, they were all flabbergasted. They were all so ashamed that they hadn't predicted the collapse that they didn't want to talk about the subject, didn't want to think about it for many months afterward.
Another structural engineer sent out a questionnaire to 100 of his colleagues asking about their knowledge of the events of 9/11 and their attitudes and beliefs. Only 2 of the 100 were willing to fill out the questionnaire.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)There were a few engineers who found the collapses suspicious, but most of those I talked with in the decade after the collapses have seemed comfortable with the conclusion that the collapses were normal. Maybe NOVA's experience was different?
If I got a questionnaire from a colleague about September 11th I wouldn't answer it either - why would I want to discuss conspiracy theories in real life with a group of people who aren't known for their rational behavior? At least here I have the protection of anonymity.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It seems that most are. After all, from 2002 to 2005, few engineers had the courage and honesty to challenge FEMA's ridiculous zipper/pancake theory. You and your friends were quite comfortable with that, right? And it turned out to be not just wrong, but ridiculous.
What makes you assume that the questionnaire was about conspiracy theories?
And why must you characterize answering a questionnaire as "discussing"?
And why must you lump our licensed engineer with a group?
You don't just put your thumb on the scale, you climb onto the side you want to weight.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Engineers are inherently conservative, so it's a bit much to expect them to regularly think outside the box.
That said, plenty of us had vested professional interest in the causes of the collapses. Designers of buildings do care about their work, and it was important that we knew why the buildings collapsed so we could determine what changes (if any) were merited to our standards of design, or even the building codes.
Engineering professionals may have disagreed about the specific cause of the collapses (lacking the information that was later available from sources such as the NIST reports) but it was difficult to find one who gave "alternate" theories any serious consideration, because they simply weren't credible in most cases. There will always be exceptions like Judy Wood, who has a PhD. in mechanical engineering and supports alternative theories, but they were (and are still) in a small minority.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)How many PhD engineers are willing to stick their necks out and defend NIST's half-an-investigation?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Most don't care enough about refuting the ridiculous theories proposed by some of those opposed to the NIST conclusions.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I didn't say anything about refuting theories. I said defending the official report. And you can't name one.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Like I said below, I've played this game before and I find it boring. You can go and move the goalposts on your own, or find a different partner.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Heaven forbid you should actually support them! That's too boring.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... courtesy of the likes of Richard Gage, who gullibly believe that the buildings should have toppled over like trees if they weren't controlled demolitions. As we have already been discussing (or rather, as I have been discussing and you have been ignoring), "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics" such as Professor Bazant, understand that toppling over like a tree would require pushing the center of mass of the falling block 100 feet to the side, to the edge of the building, and that by Newton's 3rd Law, there would be an equal and opposite reaction on the structure below for that to happen. Those who are also versed in structural mechanics, such as Professor Bazant (who has written 6 textbooks and over 450 peer-reviewed articles on the subject) are able to calculate that the necessary reactive force was about 10 times what the tower structures could resist. To "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics" that means that down was the only way the top blocks could go once the tilting pivot points succumbed to that horizontal force.
The "path of least resistance" applies to liquids flowing downhill: When they encounter an obstacle, they are free to flow to the side. To the the extent that the buildings behaved like a liquid in following the "path of least resistance," about 95% of the rubble ended up outside the building footprints, because it spilled over the sides of the falling pile of debris, but that happened only after it had contributed to the dynamic impulse force that destroyed the structure below the falling mass.
"Truthers" who create mysteries out of their own ignorance and then simply refuse to have those mysteries solved are also refusing to be among "those versed in the fundamental laws of physics." But that doesn't stop them from blathering about the "laws of physics" on message boards anyway.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You make stuff up.
Dr. Bazant's thesis was not endorsed by the governmental body responsible for explaining the collapses--probably for the simple reason that it bears no resemblance to what actually happened.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)... I noticed that if you stack up blocks until the top blocks tip over, the blocks below the tipping point will be kicked in the opposite direction. It wasn't until much later that I understood why, however.
And I already showed you this on the CS board, which demonstrates Dr. Bazant's "thesis":
When the columns along one side buckled, the top block began to tip over, with the columns on the opposite side acting as a pivot. As Bazant explained in the article that you apparently didn't read, the top block is actually trying to rotate around its center of mass, and the columns on the opposite side were unable to restrain the horizontal force that developed, so the top block has broken free of the structure and is falling straight down while continuing to rotate.
You can buttress your willful ignorance with willful blindness if you find that comforting, but if you then go out on the net yammering about "those versed in the laws of physics" and "bears no resemblance to what actually happened," you're just making yourself look foolish. Suit yourself.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... that truthers think the buildings should have toppled like trees (from the bottom) to a different issue--the rotation of the top "block" in one of the towers.
This is typical behavior of yours. When you're shown to be FOS in one issue you change the subject to another issue to try to give the impression that you weren't FoS.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)I said absolutely nothing about "
from the bottom)" and I'm not responsible for your reading comprehension difficulties. "Truthers" claim that the top block should have toppled over the side, like a cut tree.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You can't even remember what you wrote a few hours before.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...and I'm not saying you're wrong. But I am sorry to say that I simply don't believe that you can see no similarity between a demolition and particularly the collapse of WTC 7.
Please view these short videos (I chose these because they simply show events w/o political posturing). It defies logic to conceive that any objective observer could not see a resemblance:
"Nonsense?" ...Really?
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)they were chaotic messes. The collapses of the towers are what started truthers to claim that there where controlled demolitions on 9-11. For years truthers claimed that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed into their own footprints. The great internet scientists took the word of some con-artists and never bothered to time the collapses or note the obvious fact that the towers collapsed over a wide area and significantly slower than free-fall speed.
Like manna from heaven, truthers discovered WTC7 which looked more like a controlled demolition than the towers. The chaotic mess of WTC7's collapse was contained inside its outer shell. It is very strange watching it gracefully fall in silence. That is something we're not used to observing, including in controlled demolitions.
You should notice that whenever truthers run comparisons of WTC7 and controlled demolitions they always turn the sound off. They sound nothing alike. Controlled demolitions are deafeningly loud.
It's obvious what took WTC7 down. Actual scientists have studied the collapse in detail, and they use this important information for future design of tall buildings: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1135337#post33
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)But firstly, thank you for admitting that you see (if not hear) some resemblance between the WTC 7 and a demolition (so much for this being nonsense).
You say, "Like manna from heaven, truthers discovered WTC7 which looked more like a controlled demolition than the towers." I doubt that this is the case for many of those who question the official story. Most of those I've talked to don't see WTC 7 as a validation of their previously conceived notions, but rather a powerful reason to begin questioning the government narrative in the first place.
...Additionally, I see no difference between your almost religious adherence to your entrenched position -- and the midset you accuse the truthers of.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)That scenario makes absolutely no sense and they didn't collapse like any demolition ever done before. They were NOT like a controlled demolition.
It would have been humanly impossible to set up any kind of controlled demolition without being caught. There's no way that such a team could have even been assymbled.
The large fires started by WTC1 would have destroyed the demolition set-up. They had no way of knowing that any of the towers would have damaged WTC7 or set it on fire, because if not, there would have been no way of explaining WTC7's collapse.
It takes no effort to think of many more reasons why a controlled demolition is nuts.
Incredible claims require incredible evidence. You have none, but only faith. Science is the opposite of religion. Science and common sense are on my side.
We all saw the aircraft hit the towers that were flown by the mostly Saudi terrorists. It's a simple plan that is relatively easy to pull off, as long as you have terrorists willing to die for their plan.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Most of the towers' main structural columns were accessible for most of their length from the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts--and as it happens, there was a nine-month elevator renovations project before 9/11, which would have made the presence of workmen in there unremarkable.
NIST claims that the collapse of WTC7 began when part of floor 13 fell down and took out parts of the floors below. FEMA tells us that floors 14, 15, 16, and 17 were vacant.
Why does the controlled demolition scenario make no sense? How do you know that fires would have destroyed a demolition setup? What is there in an elevator shaft to burn? WTC7s collapse would have been unremarkable had it taken place when it was hidden in the dust from WTC1. There would be no need to explain--it would be assumed that it was knocked down by debris from WTC1.
If you want science to be on your side, you should be demanding new investigations that fulfill NIST's objective of explaining why and how the towers collapsed, and explain the ten essential mysteries of the collapses that NIST dodged.
NIST claims that it did not analyze the towers' collapses. How scientific is that?
What is easy about flying hijacked airliners hundreds of miles in a country that a) has the most expensive military force in the world and b) has known about your plot and its targets since 1995 and c) has had warnings from 13 foreign countries and 4 FBI offices and the CIA? The plan itself was daft. How could they expect to pull that off? NORAD had already drilled on a hijacked-airliner-into-WTC scenario. The Mossad had named Mohammed Atta, Marwan al Shehhi, Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi in their warning of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big. Almihdhar and Alhazmi were known al Qaeda agents, known to be in the country, and bought 10 airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their own real names.
Your belief that pulling such a loony plot off was "simple" and "easy" is an article of religious faith with you, and contrary to reality.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...that it is "silliness" to see a similarity between the collapse of WTC 7 and a demolition; and you've subsequently stipulated to that resemblance.
Your opinion that, "It's bat-shit crazy to believe that the buildings were taken down by demolitions" is precisely that -- your opinion, along with your opinion that science and common sense are on your side. "Common sense" might cause an objective observer to question the science behind 2 planes knocking down 3 steel skyscrapers. Wouldn't you agree?
mallard
(569 posts)... and you are sincere only in knowing what you want everyone to believe. It is a version compatible with the official one, which you admit involves lies ... apparently to maintain a margin of credibility. We can only agree that Bush was an idiot, not that he may have been duped.
"They were NOT like a controlled demolition."
They were like nothing other than controlled demolitions. What else would a controled demolition look like, please? Have you not seen the collapse of WTC7?
You claim the Saudis MUST have done it because their people were told to leave and ... took off like guilty people would. Is that not perhaps how things were made to look, along with 16 Saudi faces up on the media within hours as the accused? That's really not exactly strong evidence.
Too bad you won't reveal reasons for your dedicated loyalty to upholding the BS official line, thus indirectly to actual parties responsible and all their successful NWO neocon pals.
You talk about belief in science and evidence but don't provide much. The fires weren't even hot enough to melt steel.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)concerning Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9-11.
"They were like nothing other than controlled demolitions. What else would a controlled demolition look like, please? Have you not seen the collapse of WTC7?"
Large aircraft struck the towers. The towers fell down, striking neighboring structures on the way down. Get over it. Gravity doesn't give up, whether it's in controlled demolitions or in buildings taken down with fire. Gravity pulls straight down. Have you not heard the collapse of WTC7?
"You claim the Saudis MUST have done it because their people were told to leave and ... took off like guilty people would. Is that not perhaps how things were made to look, along with 16 Saudi faces up on the media within hours as the accused? That's really not exactly strong evidence."
The terrorists didn't try to hide their identities. It wasn't difficult to find out who they were. Plus, Osama took credit for 9-11 multiple times, including here on this video in 2004, translated by Al Jazeera. Osama would never conspire with Bush to attack the US: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014667635#post129
"Too bad you won't reveal reasons for your dedicated loyalty to upholding the BS official line"
So I'm in on the conspiracy? Can't you understand that people can honestly take positions different than you?
"You talk about belief in science and evidence but don't provide much. The fires weren't even hot enough to melt steel."
No one claims that the steel was melted. Anyone that knows anything about any of the buildings' collapses on 9-11 knows that the steel didn't melt, or need to melt for the buildings to collapse. The fires were plenty hot enough to significantly weaken and expand the steel which led to the buildings to collapse.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)- You say, "Gravity pulls straight down" and of course you're right. Then explain how 4 ton steel girders were thrown 200 yards from the towers.
- You also say that, "the steel didn't melt, or need to melt for the buildings to collapse" and again you are correct. So explain why molten metal was discovered in the basements of all three buildings weeks after their collapse.
FYI, the distance the girders were thrown and the discovery of the molten metal are facts. If you insist I'll post these for you, or you could look them up yourself.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)While some of the debris from the buildings fell away from the base, the bulk of the material went pretty much straight down. This isn't any different from other collisions. The towers had a large amount of potential energy and some of that was translated into lateral kinetic energy because of nonaxial collisions. 200 yards isn't that far when you consider how big the buildings were. You can even do a basic energy calculation to figure out what impulse energy needed to be applied to the various objects to get them to travel that far, and it's not significant compared to the overall energy budget.
It's important to note that not all metal is steel, and the melting points of several metals (lead, for example) that would have been found in the World Trade Center are much lower than steel. Unfortunately nobody seems to have any information on which metals were found melted, or where, or in what quantities.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...let's focus on the molten metal.
First of all, molten lead (like molten alluminum) is silvery in color -- not orange:
Tower #1 ..2 months later
More importantlly there is incontrovertable proof that thermate (a highly refined and more powerful version of thermite) was found in great quantities in the dust at ground zero. ...And molten iron is a biproduct of the thermite/thermate reaction. Here is an excerpt from a peer reviewed study indicating this fact (to my understanding none of NIST's findings were peer reviewed):
The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite.
Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic. http://www.bollyn.com/public/Active_Thermite_at_WTC.pdf
Billions of Previously Molten Iron Spheres in WTC Dust, Reveal Use of Thermitic Materials
So an educated guess as to the molten metal in question would be that it is indeed iron. Although you probably don't agree, do you find this a reasonable conclusion to reach?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)That's not as simple as most people think.
First, the appearance of any surface is dependent on a number of factors, including reflection of direct or ambient light, emittance (a temperature dependent property), or transmittance (not likely a significant factor in this case). This multivariate dependency alone makes it difficult to determine material without additional information.
Second, photos (and especially internet images) are notoriously poor recordings of color. The camera settings, digital format, or post-processing can change what appears in the image. Relying on them can again lead to difficulties in a correct determination of material.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Dr. Astaneh Asl said "I saw melting of girders", and he has pictures to prove it. Are you claiming that there were aluminum or lead girders in the WTC?
Dr. James Glanz, a PhD astrophysicist, reported a stalagmite of formerly molten steel.
Leslie Robertson said he saw "Like a little river of molten steel, flowing".
Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, said he saw "molten steel, running down the channel rails, like lava, like you were in a foundry."
Dr. Steven Jones claims to have access to a 40-pound ingot of melted steel or iron found at Ground Zero. He has pictures.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/126315/Answers-to-911-Objections-and-Questions-Prof-Stephen-E-Jones-Pres
(see slides 70 to 75).
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Also adding to the confusion is the question of when fire damage occurred. Pre-collapse is much more relevant to the causes of the collapses, but it can be difficult to distinguish pre-collapse from post-collapse fire damage. The NIST and their consultants have some criteria they can apply, but it's not always useful.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Dr. Glanz is a journalist. Do you think he would claim the stalagmite was steel without making some effort to verify that it was not aluminum or lead?
Your denial of reality is quite telling. Thanks for that.
It can be quite convenient to obscure the difference between pre-collapse and post-collapse occurrences when you have decided that you need not explain post-collapse. NIST can not even explain the putativie post-collapse melting of girders.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I expect consistent skepticism. Is it that difficult?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Those 10,000 pages must contain something. Oh wait, you claimed that nobody could ever read the whole thing! Then what was I doing all that time while I was reading what passes for "hard evidence" in the professional community?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... apparently at the speed of sound from one side of the building to the other across a robust and heavily cross-braced steel core that from all available evidence was not heated above 480 degrees F. There are no caluculations to support this narrative. We are expected to take it on faith.
A faith-based narrative is not hard evidence. And the 10,000 pages that do not provide hard evidence of NIST's collapse mechanism are not hard evidence of the collapse mechanism.
I never said nobody could read the whole thing. I once knew an Aspie kid who read the entire encyclopedia. Maybe you're him?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)It's okay to admit you haven't read the reports - plenty of people haven't. It's quite another thing to make claims about the contents when you haven't bothered to read them. That's an arrogant and ignorant approach.
It's interesting that you bring up the speed of sound. Why in the world would that be relevant?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...I came across the mention of the "scientific method" (which I hadn't thought much about since my days in Chem & Physics lab).
What do you know of NIST's adherence to this?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You can see Dr. Lynn Margulis fulminating about NIST's crimes against it in this video.
She goes into more detail in this one:
To examine the investigation of WTC7 in terms of its adherence to the scientific method is very interesting. I don't have time to go into it now.
It's complicated, because all the elements below can be analyzed in terms of the entire loop, and because many of the hypotheses have not been subjected to experiment.
1. We OBSERVE that planes hit the buildings.
comment: serious investigators do not dispute this.
2. We OBSERVE that the buildings did not fall down after the plane strikes.
comment: no one disputes this
3. We OBSERVE that there were fires, and the buildings fell down after the fires.
comment: no one disputes this
4. We HYPOTHESIZE that the fires weakened the steel in the buildings, so the towers fell.
5. We EXPERIMENT on the steel samples that have been preserved for our study to determine the temperatures
that they experienced.
5. We OBSERVE that not one piece of the collected core steel showed heating above 250 C, and that's not hot
enough to weaken it.
6. We HYPOTHESIZE that the core steel samples that were collected are not a representative sample of the steel
that was weakened.
comment: no experiments to test this hypothesis were done. Investigation of this observation terminated.
6. We OBSERVE from FEMA Appendix C that there was a high temp (1000 C) sulfidation attack on the steel.
7. We HYPOTHESIZE that the sulfidation attacks took place after the buildings fell down.
comment: no experiments to test this hypothesis were done. Investigation of this observation terminated.
8. We OBSERVE that we have no evidence that the building fell because the steel was weakened.
9. We HYPOTHESIZE that the structural damage from the plane was worse than we thought, and that the fire damage
was more widespread than we thought--that fireproofing was stripped off to weaken the steel represented by samples
that we don't have.
10. We EXPERIMENT on the fireproofing damage. We shoot a shotgun at a piece of fireproofed steel to show that flying
debris can remove fireproofing.
comment: I know little about the fireproofing damage, because few people can be found who will advocate for it. Consider that flying airplane wreckage was spread out over about six floors, and thus the damage was limited, on any particular floor, to a particular swathe.
11. We EXPERIMENT on the airplane damage. We run computer models. We make reasonable estimates for WTC1 that the plane
severed one core column, it severed 3 core columns, it severed 6 core columns.
comment: I don't know how you can suppose that 6 core columns severed is reasonable. Flying an airplane through a steel wall reduces it to aluminum confetti. There are FIVE high-mass components available to inflict structural damage: two engines, two wing landing gear, and one nosewheel/keel/ wingbox complex. Five shots. We reject the estimates of 1 and 3 core columns damaged and decide that 6 core columns must have been damaged --because the lower estimates did not yield a collapse when we plugged them into our computer model.
OK, that's a start. If it's anyone's interested we can go wider and deeper. It would be fascinating to make a total flow chart of the investigation of the towers, and interview participants, and find out where exactly the investigation was short-circuited and thwarted.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)I found it interesting that Dr. Margulis characterized NIST's work as not science at all. In real science one doesn't bend or ignore incontrovertible data in order to support a chosen hypothesis. She calls that propaganda, and lying. As if to make her point, there is this:
9/11: NIST engineer John Gross denies WTC molten steel
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Have you never heard of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy? It is often exploited by magicians and other illusionists.
I waved my magic wand. And then there was a rabbit in my hat! Sirhan Sirhan fired his gun 8 times and RFK fell to the floor. (Never mind that Sirhan was in front of RFK and all the 3 shots that hit him came from behind.)
Why would you think Osama would never conspire with Bush? According to the conservative French newspaper Le Figaro, Osama met with a CIA guy, Larry Mitchell, in Dubai in July of 2001. According to Sibel Edmonds al Qaeda was in the employ of the USA right up until 9/11.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/05/17/breaking-news-how-the-sunday-times-investigative-series-on-sibel-edmonds-us-ties-to-al-qaeda-chief-was-spiked/
Yes, people do claim that steel melted. 8 PhDs and an FDNY Captain have reported melted steel at Ground Zero. One of them was the President of Notre Dame University. Two were college professors of engineering--MIT and Berkeley. 3 of them issued a report on steel samples that the NYT called partially "evaporated" and "vaporized" and characterized as "perhaps the deepest mystery" of Ground Zero.
NIST has no core steel samples to support your claim that the fires were hot enough to weaken the steel. Their core steel samples only show heating to 480 degrees F.
It appears that you get your talking points from propaganda websites that have little regard for truth.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...And up until now, I have been very respectful in our exchanges -- so why have you resorted to emotionally based insults?
Reading carefully, you will observe that I made no mention whatsoever of steel (let alone claimed that the fires were hot enough to weaken it).
I presented a peer reviewed paper documenting the presence of a thermitic compound and its byproduct -- molten iron present as microspheres in abundence in dust samples taken immediately following the disaster. Also, I therby suggested that an educated guess as to the molten metal found at ground zero 2 months later would be that it is iron as well.
And finally, given the documentation provided, I said, "So an educated guess as to the molten metal in question would be that it is indeed iron. Although you probably don't agree, do you find this a reasonable conclusion to reach?" ...which question still stands.
...and I'll thank you for allowing this exchange remain free of ad hominim aspursions, and remain a respectful dialogue.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)My tone was somewhat testy, I admit. I get very annoyed when people such as cpwm make confident and careless assertions (like "No one claims that the steel was melted"
that are contrary to fact.
You might be interested in my post #345, which has a picture of what Dr. Jones claims is a 40-pound ingot of melted iron taken from Ground Zero. IIRC, Dr. Jones's belief that this is iron and not steel was based on the lack of chromium in it. IIRC A36 structural steel has no chromium in it, so perhaps Dr. Jones could be wrong about that.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Yeah, I thought you were someone else responding to me. 
And yeah, dealing with cpwm can be a strain. 
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)On Edit: I can't find the instructions. I'll have to send a message Make7.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The towers come down floor by floor by floor, spewing dust out in a symmetrical pattern, and they come down completely.
NIST's Dr. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the towers collapsed in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, he said that was the time of free fall, and he has never corrected that statement. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html
NIST's report says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down essentially in free fall.
If you disagree with NIST, then you should be calling for new investigations.
It is interesting that you invoke WTC7's silence. You claim there was an invisible, internal, chaotic collapse--which must have been a silent one. I've never heard any audio reflecting 47 concrete floors pounding into each other. Have you? Also, where's the dust from this silent internal collapse? The towers spewed out dust in all directions as they collapsed. How come no dust was ejected out of the windows of WTC7?
If it's so obvious what took WTC7 down, why did it take NIST six years to cobble together a report? In the past, what was accepted as "obvious" about WTC7 was that it fell from massive structural damage caused by impact of tower debris, and it fell from massive fires fueled by diesel fuel tanks. Now we know that those "obvious" explanations are not true. NIST says that non-fire-related structural damage played no part in collapse initiation, and that diesel fuel played no part in the fires--they were ordinary office fires.
If it's so obvious what took WTC7 down, how come their animated simulations bear to resemblance to reality? The sims show the building folding up like a wet paper bag--which is what you'd expect from a building with no floors inside it. In the actual collapse the building looks like it has its floors inside it.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...what's not so obvious is how localized damage and office fires could have caused such a catastrophic and global collapse.
I welcome hearing both sides of this issue. I just don't like it when one or the other side plays fast & loose with the facts in order to present their argument as a forgone conclusion, and in so doing denigrates those who present to the opposing side.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 03:29 AM - Edit history (1)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...we have those who promulgate the government narrative with a rabid and unrestrained contempt for any and all who would have the audacity to disagree -- regardless of the reasonableness of the dissenter.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)in the walls of the buildings BEFORE any planes hit the towers? Are they all just a bunch of liars, insane, conspiracy theorists, too?
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)in many ways.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...post # 239 while you're at it.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 16, 2013, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)
that support the official story of how the towers came down?
Seems to me that, as the top few stories crumble, there would have been some amount of lag time with the below undamaged floor until that floor collapses from the added weight, then a shorter lagtime as the next story collapses from the added weight, eventually working its way down to the bottom....in about 5 minutes or so. To see all 3 towers go down at close to free fall speed - as if the bottom of the structures are gone - is nonsensical...and my opinion hasn't changed, regardless of what the "anti-truthers" have posted here over the years.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...these kinds of questions be asked; and absent common sense answers, the door is open for speculation in every area of this event. ...And as I posted earlier, I think it's a common sense to question how 2 planes can utterly demolish 3 steel framed skyscrapers.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 17, 2013, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)
The #1 objective on the NIST report on the towers was to explain why and how the towers collapse.
NIST did not even try to explain how. They claim they didn't analyze the collapses. So we need an investigation with state of the art computer modeling that analyzes the collapses and examines the 10 essential mysteries associated with them.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...it seems that NIST's reporting consistently falls short of the precision and empirical objectivity one would expect from the 'National Institute of Standards and Technology.' This is no surprise however, given the other areas of government that shrink from full disclosure the facts here.
For example, please read & respond to post #239 which deals with such problems associated with the 9/11 commission (and subsequent report).
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Is that not enough?
It's not just the added weight that causes collapse - it's the dynamic loading, which can be many times the carrying capacity of the structure. Failure happens much more quickly than you might think. I've done a simple momentum transfer calculation and come up with collapse times that are in the ballpark of the actual durations of the collapses.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I bet you can not name even one PhD engineer who will publicly endorse NIST's collapse sequence.
If you can, I bet that person has professional ties to NIST.
Dynamic loading explains how a collapse keeps going after a certain threshold is reached.
Dynamic loading does not explain how you get to that threshold.
How come NIST didn't include your momentum transfer calcs in their reports? Because they didn't like the results?
Do you honestly expect us the accept the calculations an anonymous internet poster claims he did as a substitute for the ones NIST claims they didn't do?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)You'll just keep moving the goalposts, and I've played this game enough to find it boring by now.
What do you know about dynamic loading? Not much, based on your posts in the "Creative Speculation" forum. I'll rely on my own calculations rather than your unsupported claims, thank you.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)All I need to know is that NIST only gave us half a report and that seems to be good enough for you.
Your habitual allusion to your own omniscience is becoming quite tiresome.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Perhaps you should stick to arguing about topics where you have sufficient knowledge.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)And nice edit, by the way. Again with the late edit, after I've already responded.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)your ass and a few others coming around here to argue the points! 
Guess you've been coming here to get bored for many years now. And guess what. Not once have you convinced anyone. 
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I don't expect anyone to accept my calculations as a substitute for anything (especially since I didn't provide them here). I expect the competent posters to do their own, because that's what I would do (and did). I'm certainly not going to advocate for blind acceptance of someone else's claims.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf
Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I (Patrick Gallagher) hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"
, in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:- 1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
- 2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.
~
Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009
AZCat
(8,339 posts)It's the intermediate work that informed the conclusions.
But to answer the question you meant to ask, I don't know. I would be surprised if any organizations were willing to admit to possibly endangering public safety by supporting the release of that information, but I would also be surprised to find any organizations supported not releasing the information either. I think it's a stupid idea not to release the info, but I don't think there would be anything earth-shaking in the files.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I guess you're right, their release of calcs that turn out to be fraudulent wouldn't be so earth-shaking.
After all, we already know that they lost the shear studs and the stiffener plates that got in the way of their girder walk-off theory. So fudging the calcs wouldn't be much of a surprise.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)The thermal expansion calcs are not earth-shaking. None of their data is out of line with what the rest of the professional community expected.
Do you have a problem with this? Then why don't you set up your own experiments to validate your suspicions? That's what i do. It's entertaining and educational at the same time!
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Besides, if NIST's calculations are a threat to public safety, how could mine be any less so? I wouldn't want DHS breathing down my neck because I'd done calcs threatening public safety!
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Are you seriously going to use the NIST's lame excuse for not releasing information as an excuse not to perform a reality check on your own?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Thank goodness actual qualified professionals care more than you do, and have gone through the trouble of checking on their own.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)be in the habit of doing so, because that's the nature of due diligence.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Please back up and begin again. Do not pass "Go", do not collect $200.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...give you any pause? In other words, are you still totally comfortable with your agreement with NIST, knowing that it's withholding these data?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)While the engineering community doesn't question the "planes/fire" cause of the collapses, there are still plenty of things to squabble about. It's been a looooooong time since the NIST's recommendations to the various building code/standard organizations were produced and my memory isn't good enough to recall all the details, but there was plenty of vigorous debate over the particulars. A good deal of this questioning was driven by independent work that resulted in different conclusions. Again, the devil is in the details - nobody was seriously quibbling about the "planes/fire" thing.
The reality is that the impacts, subsequent fires and damage, and the collapses were complicated, nonlinear time-dependent events that are pretty much impossible to replicate, even considering the sophisticated computer models of today. That means a lot of guesswork has to go into the models, and your specific sequence of events depends strongly on the assumptions you make when creating the models. Different groups make different assumptions, and therefore get different results (usually with different tools, as well). But in the end, they all lead to a global runaway collapse.
Would it be interesting to look at the NIST's data? Sure, but it's no better than anyone else's (except maybe more detailed).
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Don't you think that the data developed by National Institute of Standards and Technology should of a much higher "standard" anyone else's?
Also, what's your opinion regarding NIST's refusal to publish crucial data? I appreciate that you agree that it's stupid; but (assuming for the moment that there's no threat to public safety in its release) what might you speculate as to the real reasons for their decision?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)They produce lots of research that is the basis for building safety. Their fire science is pretty darn good, for example, and I would think it to be a reasonable expectation that all their work be held to the same standard.
Honestly, who knows? There could be all sorts of reasons: the data got lost or corrupted and nobody wants to admit it; the data shows shoddy modelling techniques and the NIST is embarrassed to show they paid somebody for poor quality work; there's a political dimension that isn't apparent to any of us (Bush-era secrecy, possibly); they are afraid of a deluge of questions from people who are picking through their numbers and they don't think they have the resources to respond.
None of these are significant (other than losing the data - you probably can't recover from that) and shouldn't hold up the release, but again I don't think this changes anything. Anybody who wanted to check the NIST's work built their own models anyway, and that way you can reduce the likelihood that the other models replicate possible errors in the NIST models.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)They show the building folding up like a wet paper bag.
The reality of the building that we see collapsing is that it looks like it still has its floors in place, keeping its shape.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I thought it was a dumb idea, because I figured laypeople who don't know much about modelling would misunderstand the purpose of the simulation and nitpick about apparent disconnects between the results and the actual event. I have been (disappointingly) proven correct.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Funny how GIGO turns out that way sometimes, huh?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)to try to engage in a discussion where you lack the understanding to be a productive participant? Only someone who doesn't really understand would describe the collapse as "simple" as compared to a computer model of the event.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Who is laboring to make this more complicated? It's already complicated enough.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)
... for their clients and, more importantly, a profit opportunity and field of entrepreneurial endeavor for themselves.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Please forgive me, but I've lost the thread of this conversation.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... in pursuit of justice and some others around here act like defense attorneys for the accused seeking to obstruct investigation by all available means.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)but repeatedly make basic mistakes, and then become hostile and argumentative when those mistakes are noted? Is that the public-spirited citizens, or the lawyers? I'm a little lost with your analogy.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Some people are seeking complete and honest investigations so that the victims of 9/11 can have justice.
It's only because some people are determined to obstruct that quest that we haven't had them.
The 9/11 widows are still looking for answers to 273 of their 300 questions.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)That's a pretty big mistake, considering you're trying to make physics-based arguments about acceleration and momentum transfer of falling bodies.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)when I obviously don't. That would be you.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)You wouldn't want to look like that guy, would you?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Problem solved, at least for me.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The unsubstantiated opinions of an anonymous internet poster are empty to me.
If you base your opinions on such evidence, as you seem to expect us to, you have a very muddled epistemology.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Because I won't spoon-feed basic physics to you, while the answers are only a Google search away? That's an interesting expectation of yours. Life must be pretty disappointing for you.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... anonymous internet poster.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Your mistakes are easily checked with a little Google work. That you haven't bothered to do this yourself is pretty telling - it appears you're more interested in defending your ego than the truth.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Unbelievable. How many years did they have to make the model physics agree with the reality of the collapse?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Why would they do that--except if the second half of the animation does something way out of character, like topple to the south?
Also note, NIST's draft WTC7 report claimed several times that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" (i.e., the laws of physics). In the final report (wherein they were forced to admit that the building came down at freefall for 2.25 seconds) they removed every single instance of that claim.
I sure would have enjoyed being a fly on the wall for the discussion that led to that edit. If we can get enough interest in the issue, I bet whistleblowers will come forward.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)The simulation of the collapse simply isn't interesting to actual professionals, for reasons I've posted ad infinitum.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Not surprising, considering how little you think of the NIST in general.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Oh right, you can't find any evidence to support your claim, but that's not going to stop you.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Oh, I'm sorry. That must be some other AZCat with his signature idiot-weariness.
Who would spend his time doing that? Why? Who would spend hundreds of hours over many years trying to convince Chemtrailers and Sasquatch hunters that there's nothing there?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Please point out any bullying - that's probably against the DU terms of service, and should be identified to the group hosts.
One can easily ask why someone with a demonstrably poor grasp of physics would persist in trying to make arguments based on flawed physics, with an accompanying hostile attitude when the mistakes are identified by others.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Your profile indicates that in ten years you've made 8,000 posts.
That's a lot of bullying.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Fortunately for me I have plenty of evidence supporting my claims.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)What I see or what the goverment/NIST tells me is the truth? I kow wnat I saw, but I should believe the same government that lied about a a false cacucus belli about Iraq? We killed 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqi's based on bullshit 9/11 findings...and I should believe you? You and the people that support Bush/Cheney I n the official CT are enablers.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Just because the government has been known to lie doesn't mean they always do. While I'm no fan of George Bush and don't trust what he says (because of a long history of lying, both personally and professionally), he did promote exercise as a component of a healthy lifestyle and that's typically regarded as a true claim by most people.
Besides, where does the NIST claim their collapse simulation for WTC7 is identical to the actual collapse? I hope they didn't make this claim, because that would be pretty stupid of them.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)To me it's outside the realm of logic to exclude the fact that my government has lied to me from the calculus of whether or not believe said government's narrative visa vi one of the most seminal events in our nation's history.
If I know that a surgeon "has been known" to commit malpractice, I'm certainly not going to roll the dice and have him cut on me. Would it be logical for me to think, "So what about his history; there are plenty of his patients who seem to be doing fine."?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I said that you shouldn't use the fact that it does lie to conclude that it always lies. Because that simply isn't true.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...in the context of your argument you were basically assenting to the poster's assertion that we were lied into Iraq. Implicit in you statement (that the government doesn't always lie) is that there's no compelling reason to question the government's veracity visa vi its version of the events of 9/11. Am I apprehending this correctly?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)in a functioning democracy (at least in my opinion). You should question government reports, no matter the topic. However, there is still a point when you can determine the likelihood of a falsehood is low and move on. It's certainly possible the September 11th attacks were orchestrated in a manner similar to some of the more outrageous theories, but it is unlikely (or impossible, in the case of a few poorly constructed theories).
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... allowing the authorities to sequester information on bogus grounds is unacceptable.
Even people who think the controlled demolitionists are FoS should be demanding that NIST release the information and not hide behind ridiculous claims of protecting public safety.
Obama's Justice Department even advocated that FOIA requests could be met by lying claims that the docs did not exist if the agency did not want to release them. After public outcry, they backed down on that.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)and while I don't agree we need to be demanding the results (I just don't think the missing information is that relevant), I agree with your general intent.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)How is public safety served by withholding data that should help architects design safer buildings?
Also, if NIST wanted to be perceived as more credible, it would it would serve them well to published some peer reviewed papers on this subject.
Interesting how secrecy can make people think "cover-up." ...Then one may ask, "What truth (if revealed) could be so bad that NIST would rather be under a decade+ long cloud of suspicion?
AZCat
(8,339 posts)Modelling nonlinear systems is a mug's game.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)that was done in secret by all these secret institutions that validates all the secret data that NIST won't release--so we don't have to worry our pretty little heads about them. Gosh, I feel ever so much better now!
AZCat
(8,339 posts)There's no rational connection between your post and the one you responded to. Was it really necessary, or perhaps just misplaced?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Wed Dec 18, 2013, 09:08 PM - Edit history (1)
AZCat
(8,339 posts)#294 wasn't even in response to a post of yours.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AZCat
(8,339 posts)You've made a habit of responding to posts that are years old (at least in the "Creative Speculation" group). That doesn't strike me as behavior consistent with someone who is "cutting edge" or "looking forward".
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2013, 12:52 AM - Edit history (1)
... you must be very narrowly educated.
Dredging up truths that some sophist squelched is often cutting edge. Those dusty rare books (the kind you must wear gloves to handle) sometimes contain wonders.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)See there are all these anonymous guys on the internet who are really smart, and they've done all the calculations and they know everything, but they won't share their calculations or their knowledge because we're too dumb to understand but we should just trust them, they know.
So we don't need complete and honest government reports, because these anonymous guys have all the answers, and they know the reports are good enough for government work, and that's all we need to know.
AZCat
(8,339 posts)I would not recommend trusting the work of anyone else. You should do your own calculations as a matter of habit, because it never hurts to check.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)possible involvement in 911. Who woulda thunk it?
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20131127180310708
Clearly, you are wrong.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Wednesday, November 27 2013
So if Saudi Arabia's having so much influence on U.S. foreign policy, shouldn't we pay attention to the words of Senator Bob Graham, who wrote a book, Intelligence Matters: The CIA, the FBI, Saudi Arabia, and the Failure of America's War on Terror? In that book he said fairly strong things about Saudi Arabia. Here's what Senator Bob Graham wrote towards the end of his book. I believe--and I'm adding a word here to give it context--there is a state-sponsored terrorist support network that still exists, largely undamaged, within the United States."
The whole book is about the role of Saudi Arabia and its connection to 9/11. And according to Bob Graham, members of the Saudi government and royal family were directly connected to inspiring, funding, and helping support the organization of certain 9/11 conspirators. That came about as a result of his work as chair of the congressional joint committee on 9/11. So if we're going to look at today's effect and role of Saudi Arabia on current policy and the important role it's playing, we should also pay attention to the recent history of Saudi Arabia. Click Here
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... was "not a warning".
I guess you weren't paying attention. The memo warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks inside the US.
Dr. Philip Zelikow, Condi's buddy and the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, was overheard telephoning the CIA authors of the memo and asking them to corroborate Condi's statement. (See Shenon, p. 374) They refused.
There were warnings from `13 foreign countries, and 4 FBI offices. The CIA briefed Condi on 5/30 and 7/10 about the dire nature of the al Qaeda threat. Tenet and Blee agreed that had she acted on their warnings, 9/11 might have been prevented. Cofer Black said they did everything but pull the trigger to the gun they were holding to her head.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)The Bush administration sucked and they were too stupid to care about the American people.
It's somewhat plausible, but probably not provable, that individuals in the Bush administration didn't really care if we were struck by a terrorist attack since that would give them an excuse to push for their own selfish agenda. But it isn't plausible that they all conspired to allow a terrorist attack that they knew was coming.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... and at 3:23 you say that the government lies routinely, but it doesn't matter.
There were FBI agents who were dying to testify about their frustrated investigations, but they could not do so unless they were subpoenaed, and they were not subpoenaed.
What's wrong with having an honest and thorough investigation first, with all the documents released and all the witnesses subpoenaed, before deciding what's plausible and implausible?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)She would swear under oath firstly which is disconcerting. AND, as reported on CNN in 2000, the US had anti-aircraft artillery installed around the island of Genoa for the G8 meeting that year because they were afraid of terrorists using planes as kamikaze bombs...it was right there on CNN on tv and even I rembered it so ypu can bet Condi knew and was just afraid of herself being blamed. People who apologize for these insidious sleezeballs are part of the problem. I'm assuming they aren't sick-puppeted military contractors paid to post here of course.
Response to cpwm17 (Reply #41)
Ace Acme This message was self-deleted by its author.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Of course, there's a lot of evidence we'll never have the benefit of, because the steel was shipped out as soon as possible--shipped from one of the biggest crime scenese since the Jonestown Massacre. I ask you: WHO benefits from the immediate disposal of evidence at the crime scene?
And then there's the evidence of military grade thermite at the scene, and months of molten metal cooling at the scene. (You don't get molten metal with a fire caused by the burning of jet fuel, or even the burning of the building and it's contents.)
And then there's the over 2000 engineering and architectural professionals who provide testimony that the planes could not have caused the collapse of the buildings, and Building Seven, itself, which was not hit by a plane at all, collapsing. In fact, this is the first time in history that not one, not two, but three steel frame buildings have ever collapsed because of fire.
You are asking us to suspend belief in the laws of physics, and instead, believe only certain evidence, all the while, hiding other evidence behind the excuse of "national security."
I think not.
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)There isn't just one view and it's the questions that are important. Those who believe in a cabal of those in our government facilitating this once they got warning could easily see Saudi and maybe another country working with Cheney's ilk. This is just too big and influential an event to ignore.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)This is a different category of issue than controlled demolition, thermite, and what exactly hit the Pentagon.
Those are a far second in my mind from who backed it in governments, why, and what can or should be done about it.
Those questions I just asked could prove the whole War on Terror is a lie, which must people seem to already intuitively know.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Which they have yet to get. They don't necessarily all say that the Saudis were or were not behind the attack. What they do say is that we do not have the truth in our hands, and they are absolutely correct in that.
Lenomsky
(340 posts).. made me laugh - common sense yet sheeple munch grass (not that type silly).
Nice post 'beLIEve .. like Chris Angel).
I'm no troofer but certain individuals had prior knowledge or benefited or .. or .. self interest me finks!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)to anyone with a brain since 9/11/01? He's playing dumb, because he's a Republican.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)from the first gulf war gone.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...congressmen are pushing for the release of 28 redacted pages in the government report.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...a great excerpt. I don't intend on getting into an argument with someone who clearly agrees with me philosophically. I just want my OP article seen as the news which it is -- that congressmen are pushing for the release of the redacted pages.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)"War on Terror" was supposed to be to prevent more 9/11's, but the country most responsible wasn't punished at all?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)They never cared about those who died.
Hell, the Right Wing was criticizing the 9/11 widows and were FIXATED on the money donated to the children. They just HATE the idea that the kids could be "set for life" over it.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)from any punishment?
Or that since the guilty were close allies of the administration whether there was any collusion?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)is a legitimate argument.
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)Should the cops spend more time going after kids shooting spitballs than serial killers?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...thank you.
I'll be posting more on him & others.
packman
(16,296 posts)Old man Bush sent his son, George W., to Saudi Arabia during his "formative" years to spend time with the Saudi princes. You aren't going to tell me that that kiss, holding hands, and affectionate gaze he gave him when he visited the White House doesn't speak volumes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0R6QFwKWFpA
KansDem
(28,498 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Among others, it singles out Omar al-Bayoumi, who gave financial assistance to 9-11 hijackers Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar.
The FBI charges al-Bayoumi, an official of the Saudi civil aviation authority, never lacked for money and is believed to have received funds from a charitable trust run by the wife of the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. The Saudis, for all their protestations of cooperating in the war on terror, still refuse to allow the FBI access to al-Bayoumi.
9/11 Families ask Obama to release the 28 pages:
http://www.motleyrice.com/news/view/911-families-call-upon-president-obama-to-release-28-redacted-pages-1028
“The transparency begins with the 28 pages, but it extends much further,” the letter states. “For example, we are closely monitoring a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in which plaintiffs are suing the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, regarding an investigation involving a Saudi family, former residents of Sarasota, FL, who may have provided aid or assistance to the 9/11 hijackers. We understand that plaintiffs in that case have also requested Part Four of the report of the Joint Inquiry.”
Former Senator Bob Graham, co-chair of the 9/11 Joint Congressional Investigation, has provided declarations that the investigation of the Sarasota family was not disclosed to him or his co-chair, Porter Goss. He also states that, when he learned of the investigation in 2011, he asked the same question of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, and they confirmed that they had not been aware of the FBI’s investigation either.
Bin Laden Reported to have Met with Saudi Intelligence Chief 2 Months Before 9/11
(Note Prince Turki al Faisal would later become Ambassador to the USA, replacing the former Ambassador known as "Bandar Bush"
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/nov/01/afghanistan.terrorism
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Javaman
(62,521 posts)they alone would make everything else fall into place.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)This needs to see the light of day somewhere besides DU.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Probably a wise decision, as they could easily be victimized by fake documents if they did. And true documents might not believed and might hurt their credibility.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)There will open up other avenues. I'm just worried we're going to get the same magic 17 hijacker bullets, like that one magic bullet that was supposedly involved in the JFK deal. At this level of national/historical involvement, there is no single person that could pull all that off, or in the 9/11 case, no majik 19 or 17 saudi hijackers.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)There are so many unanswered questions that the government does not want to see the light of day.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)spontaneously.
Kingofalldems
(38,453 posts)with a Saudi prince?
loudsue
(14,087 posts)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...when you're in bed with someone?
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, Indi Guy.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Webster's definition:
con·spir·a·cy noun \kən-ˈspir-ə-sē\
: a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal
: the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal
debunkthis
(99 posts)
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)See the notch in the high side? That's where they stuck the lance through a hole and cut the low side. See the slag flow on the low side showing the cut was from inside?
There are 2100 architects and engineers for truth calling for new investigations. They debunked that evidence 5 years ago at least. Skepticism is a good thing, but confirmation bias is a bad thing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Same team, at last.
High-five.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)debunkthis
(99 posts)not a member of a demolition crew...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Here's some, lower left.
And, center screen, surrounded by steel workers.
debunkthis
(99 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 08:51 PM - Edit history (1)
Here is another image which appears to show a cut core column, captured by helicopter just after the collapse:
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I note the giant plume of shit is gone. So it couldn't have been THAT 'just after the collapse'.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 10:40 PM - Edit history (1)
of a big hole in the roof of WTC6 (in the center of the image below)
http ://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/010919-N-5471P-515_WTC_Ground_Zero.jpg
The interior of WTC1 is to the right (we can see part of the NE corner still standing). The collapsed WTC7 is to the left.
perhaps you are correct about this image, I'll compare these when I get a chance. Regardless, there is ample evidence and eyewitness account of that terrible day to discredit the NIST report ( including statements made by members of the 9/11 Commission itself ) and provide justification for a new and independent investigation. All of this can be found online for those who care to do a bit of research.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL...
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... Dan Rather's TANG memo. Deceptive plants obscure underlying truths.
2100 architects and engineers are calling for new 9/11 investigations. Their 90-minute video "9/11 Explosive Evidence" can be seen for free on youtube.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)I guess the NIST is in on the conspiracy as well
Thermite! Molten Steel! Controlled Demolition! CGI Planes!
"In 2005, a report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the destruction of the World Trade Center towers was initiated by a "progressive collapse" caused by the jet impacts and the resultant fires. A 2008 NIST report described a similar progressive collapse as the cause of the destruction of the third tallest building located at the World Trade Center site, the 7 WTC. Many mainstream scientists choose not to debate proponents of 9/11 conspiracy theories, saying they do not want to lend them unwarranted credibility.[47]"
The best part
After the publication of the results of NIST's inquiry into the collapse of 7 WTC, Richard Gage called a news conference,[6] and leaders of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth dismissed NIST's investigation as flawed. When told of the claims, Shyam Sunder, lead investigator from NIST, responded: "I am really not a psychologist. Our job was to come up with the best science."[7]
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)to ad hominem attack instead, and you find that admirable? Is "I am not a psychologist" an engineering argument? Is "ROFL" good science?
In the technical briefing on the draft WTC7 report in August, 2008, Dr. Sunder denied that any freefall collapse had taken place. And he explained why it could NOT take place. He said: “Free-fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it…. There was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous.”
In the final report NIST was forced to admit that 2.25 seconds of the collapse was in freefall. They also removed from the final report every instance of the draft's claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". (I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall for the discussion about that!)
Regarding the report on the towers, NIST only did half the job. The objective was to explain why and how the towers collapsed. But they claim they did not analyze the collapses! They cut off their analysis at the moment the collapse began, and thus they dodged ALL of the mysteries of the collapses. Is that "the best science"? Is such a dereliction of duty acceptable for a democracy?
There are 78 structural engineers, 40 PhD engineers, and 38 high rise architects among the architects and engineers for truth. They are not paid by the Department of Commerce, as NIST is. Perhaps you should consider that before you assume that they don't know what they're talking about.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Not one fucking person who has any factual evidence of a massive conspiracy that in theory would take hundreds, if not thousands of people "in the know" to pull off.
If you want to keep the company of birthers and alex jones type conspiracy crackpots that's your prerogative.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... to a "massive conspiracy".
Why would it take thousands to pull it off?
Conventional engineering wisdom from 2002 to 2005 was that a few truss anchors in the towers had failed, causing the floors to "unzip" and then come down in a "pancake" collapse. If that's true, a suicide guy operating a high-speed cutting disk could have cut enough trusses in 20 minutes to bring a tower down. Dr. Van Romero, an explosives expert, opined that a few charges in key places could bring the towers down.
NIST's theory about WTC7 is that one girder failed, causing a chain reaction that brought the whole building down. If that's true, then only one girder need be cut at one end and the whole building comes down.
Much has been accomplished in ten years. The official reports have been shown to be scientifically flawed and incomplete and very likely dishonest. The need for new investigations has been demonstrated, and the government's secrecy betrays them. For instance, one structural engineer wanted to see NIST's worksheets on their calculations for the thermal expansion that they claim pushed the inciting girder off its seat. His request was refused on grounds that release of those calcs might endanger public safety. It's ridiculous! There is no secret to thermal expansion calcs. It's simple textbook stuff. NIST didn't want anyone checking their work, so they keep the worksheets secret.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)
questionseverything
(9,653 posts)or pics of the demo crew "cleaning up"?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)questionseverything
(9,653 posts)the pic is not dated.....so it COULD be from clean up
and the pic shows some steel was cut in clean up (duh!)
nothing is debunked at those links that i can see
for me the symmetrical collapse of building 7 is the smoking gun
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That is not a 'linear shaped charge', that is activity by workers in the wreckage at ground zero to cut up and remove wreckage.
Please do not disrupt a political thread about 9/11 with a actual evidence, with made-up fantasies.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)I'm a materials engineer. Steel frame skyscrapers falling straight down (through the path of greatest resistance) at freefall speed as a result of assymmetrical collateral damage (from the WTC 1 and 2 collapse) and office fires simply does not compute. Does it, to you?
Note that you don't need to spend time on what DID happen then. I don't know, I just know the official explanation is physical nonsense.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Most of the hijackers were Saudi. Their leader was Saudi. The Saudi Royal Family arguably had a stronger 'special relationship' with the Bush admin, than the UK enjoys with the US. This material was redacted, and members of the Saudi royal family, and others, were treated with special dispensation in the aftermath.
That is a real issue from stem to stern all by itself.
WTC7's exterior cantilever steel frame falling to the ground at speeds fully explained by the collapse of the interior supports well before motion is apparent from the outside, and your understanding of it, is irrelevant.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... because doubts about the integrity and completeness of he "scientific" investigation of what happened at Ground Zero can certainly lend weight to wishes for more disclosure about other elements of the 9/11 investigations.
And "fully explained"? Shyam Sunder said in a public technical briefing that the visible collapse could not have been at free fall because free fall would require that there was no structural support. "There was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous."
Later, of course he was forced to admit that there was a period of free fall in the collapse--which implies that the structural resistance was neutralized and everything WAS instantaneous.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)WTC collapsed due to natural forces expected from the fire, or otherwise. There is likely nothing 'scientific'ally relevant in those redacted documents. It is entirely politically relevant.
The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other, and discussion about WTC7's failure mode is not relevant. Materials shatter when stressed beyond tolerance. They fail, quite spectacularly. The interior supports of WTC7 fail prior to the start of that ridiculous 'video analysis' of WTC by A&E/Truth liars, because as you can see in the video, the penthouse roofline equipment has already fallen... somewhere. I'll give you one guess where 'somewhere' is, and to help you along, it's because the building collapse is already well underway, even though not otherwise visible from the exterior.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)are certainly related to the political issue of redactions of another official report.
Much as I hate to let your irrational argument stand unchallenged, out of deference to the subject matter of the OP I will rein in the impulse to continue a line that could hijack the thread.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I want to know what was in those redacted documents. I tend to assume they MUST be damaging to one party or another, or perhaps all.
I don't particularly see the links between the two reports, but since I cannot know the contents of the Saudi reports at this time, I will defer judgment on that issue until the material DOES become public.
Hopefully before certain relevant parties have died of old age.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...opens the door to all manner of speculation.
While it's important to keep this thread on topic, it's also reasonable to expect that those who question the veracity of the government narrative visa vi the Saudi connection may extend their questioning into other areas of "official" reporting.
It is unreasonable to expect the official version of events (of and surrounding 9/11) to be trusted in every area -- after officials have proven themselves to be less than honest and forthcoming in one such critical area.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)like you are free to not respond, or do so in passing condenscension.
Not even NIST's simulation looks even remotely like what my own lying eyes see. A simulation whose parameters they didn't disclose because it might jeopardize public safety.
Flies in the face of what science is supposed to be.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Discussion requires responding parties.
I am just as justifiably free to dismiss your statement as irrelevant as you were free to make it in the first place.
Double-standards do not beget honest discussion.
(And I fully accept you are free to dismiss my dismissal)
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)and I'm happy to let that be the end of it, for the sake of the OP. I concur with Ace Acme's statement in post #87.
Following the money is as good a start as any.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)yurbud
(39,405 posts)weren't punished in any way.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)And not even do a good job of hiding the fact that they're protecting Saudi interests and allies, then it's kind of hard to be too upset with the conspiracy theorists.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)If the government had been totally honest and forthcoming from the start, there would have been no cause or justification for distrust.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)investigated & findings have been published in OFFICIAL reports. Walk away, nothing to see here folks.
The gov't does not lie.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)the occupants of the space station can see it with the naked eye
mother earth
(6,002 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)suggest.
Just one. Preferably from someone who is not PPR'd. Just one that states the government always tells the truth would do nicely.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)mother earth
(6,002 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)evidence. Of which, you have none. Good day!
mother earth
(6,002 posts)When people pay attention, the OP is old news to those of us who have been paying attention because it was well known from the get go that the perps were Saudis, this is part of a snipped official report, and you speak of strawmen....you cannot have it both ways.
You either dig for the truth and expose it or you are part of the problem. You are a DU'er who does not seem to get it, but I'm not surprised since more than half of America thought Iraqis were responsible & probably still do. We never needed the tea party, some of our "own" are in denial, serious denial, filled with ridicule for those who want real transparency and the real skinny in any investigation.
Strawmen, un huh, educate me on strawmen, you don't even get that the real CT'ers are the true believers.
And forget about fire, you are filled to the brim with a dark brown substance, and are looking for a fight, like a good bully does, you are all over this thread with your stink.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"60. According to those who talk shit to CT's, the gov't NEVER lies, everything has been reported &
investigated & findings have been published in OFFICIAL reports. Walk away, nothing to see here folks.
The gov't does not lie"
Find me a poster on this forum that even debates with 'CT's', that holds the position that the government never lies.
You can't. Because no one does. (Not outside locked, moderated or PPR'd posters anyway)
mother earth
(6,002 posts)care...you are all cut from the same cloth and always at the ready for your drive-bys. I had no conversation with you until now, but it's always the SSDD.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I note you continue to refuse to provide one, so that, not even me, but OTHERS can evaluate the honesty of your claim.
mother earth
(6,002 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I'm asking you to support that attack. This is not complex.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)It claimed: "Saying that the US Government lied about facts concerning 9-11 is an assumed but important fact that the truthers have not uncovered and they deserve no credit what-so ever."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014667635#post41
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)of comment #60 above that started this subthread: "according to those who talk shit to CT's, the gov't NEVER lies...": http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014667635#post60
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)I certainly didn't learn of them from the mainstream media, or the "debunkers".
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Or did they gloss over that?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)You know, about the redacted documents involving the Saudis. The topic of THIS FUCKING THREAD RIGHT HERE IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... for years. I learned of the 28 redacted pages from truthers.
And coverage of the resolution has been almost nil in the media. I see a report in the Boston Globe, and one in the Boston Herald (rep. Lynch's district includes part of Boston)
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2013/12/03/lawmakers-declassify-documents-detailing-foreign-support-for-hijackers/oaXul3hgHHdSMpdfOYV8FJ/story.html
http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/opinion/editorials/2013/12/open_the_911_books
I see a report at WITN (Greenville, NC--where rep. Jones's district is)
http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/Congressman-Jones-Wants-Classified-911-Information-Released-234332691.html?ref=691
Interestingly, though this report is credited to AP, I don't find any evidence that any other news media have run it except possibly abc6 in Providence, R.I.
So what was that you were saying about mainstream coverage of the issue?
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...believe me.
I've been following the events surrounding 9/11 for many years and there's precious little that the MSM will cover relating to that day which carries even a whiff of controversy. If you don't believe this, then consider how few times the topic has come up in LBN.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... in a panel discussion I saw.
She said more or less that for something to be news, there has to be a reason it's important today.
So they can't just do a general investigative journalism piece about these things--they have to be able to hang it on some Congressional action or something--which is what we're looking at here, and which is very rare.
But it suggests that perhaps the news media have been accumulating very large files of heretofore unpublishable background material, and that if Congress ever does start turning over some rocks we might get a flood of great stuff! (We can dream, right?)
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)At http://www.911truth.org there are many very reasonable and well respected professionals who have presented cogent and well documented volumes of investigative work which contradict the official version of events.
Sure, there are rabid conspiratorialists around who won't listen to reason; but I've seen much of the opposite as well -- people who refuse to evaluate solid contradictory evidence because, in their arrogance, they are dismissive of anything which doesn't fit into their entrenched position.
Your thoughts?
noise
(2,392 posts)Lara Logan was the reporter at 60 Minutes who interviewed former FBI agent Ali Soufan. 60 Minutes ran an accompanying article on their website at the time. This was the brilliant response to Soufan's credible accusation of CIA withholdling:
The Interrogator
A talking point from the CIA was the extent of their follow up? Was 60 Minutes taken to task for this sort of trash journalism? Of course not.
IMO most US journalists are completely full of shit when it comes to reporting on 9/11.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)During those days there was an atmosphere of fear among politicians & journalists -- fear of being labeled "unpatriotic."
If you recall, most of those in leadership roles (Rep. and Dem.) and those who reported on them felt handcuffed, and would rarely express dissent -- and when they did so, it was in the most cryptic of terms.
Such was the chilling nature of rhetoric coming from the WH. ...And such was the atmosphere established which allowed for the passage of The 'Patriot' Act -- the single most un-American piece of legislation passed in modern times.
noise
(2,392 posts)extends well past the initial stage of fearmongering.
Tonight 60 Minutes reporter John Miller let NSA chief Alexander once again tell a lie about NSA's failure to track al-Mihdhar's calls. What makes this even worse is that Miller co-authored a book about 9/11 called The Cell. So he knows full well that US intelligence was aware of al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi before 9/11. If I recall correctly the book chalked CIA and FBI failures up to turf battles and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Miller comes across more like a spokesperson for the US intelligence community than a journalist. His reporting on the NSA story was similar to Lara Logan's report on Benghazi. Not only is the NSA getting away with gross lies about 9/11 but they are in turn exploiting those lies to justify a police state type of surveillance.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)in the "Creative Speculation" group. Out here in public they're more careful.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)I would love to know what is in those pages. I wonder if anything would change if we did know.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)inside the USA--Nawaf al Hazmi and Khalid al Mihdhar.
Al Mihdhar was here in the USA, then he went to Yemen and lived for a year in a known al Qaeda communications hub that was monitored both by the NSA and the CIA and also by audio bugs.
Then he returned to the USA, no problem, and he and al Hazmi were both known by the CIA and the FBI to be in the country. There was a debate within the FBI about whether they should open an intel investigation or a full-scale criminal investigation. They decided on an intel investigation and assigned one rookie to the job. Within a few days he was asking if he could run a credit-card check on them to see what they were up to, but his superior, Dina Corsi, discouraged him. Bob Woodward said that if this credit card check had been run it would have revealed that al Mihdhar and al Hazmi together bought ten airline tickets dated 9/11/01 under their own real names.
The only explanation (former counterterrorism czar) Richard Clarke could offer for this cockup was that CIA had a hands-off policy on these two because they were hoping to recruit them as double agents.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Too bad a whistleblower wasn't put in charge of the pages.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)I'm glad to see him take this up. He represents mostly a Military District in NC and has been working with Soldiers and Vets because he is not a Repug War Monger. He's closer to the "old school Repugs" who aren't TEA BAGGERS or REAGAN/BUSHIES.
He's a guy who stands on Principle ...and not to be put in with the same crowd with rest of Repugs there on Capitol Hill.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)landlord.
There was pretty substantial evidence of the Saudi government supporting the hijackers as well as Pakistan.
Since neither government was punished in any way (at least at the time for Pakistan), it makes me wonder if
A) our government is so afraid of the oil industry, they won't lay a finger on a country they do business with on terms they like
or
B) Bandar Bush was doing Baby Bush a favor (which they celebrated with cigars on the White House balcony while the Pentagon was still smoldering in the distance).
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 10:44 PM - Edit history (1)
Also, they were trying to turn Osama over in the spring of 2001. The US was not very amenable to that.
After 9/11, they offered to turn Osama over if the US would provide evidence that he did it. (Chomsky says the US "didn't have any".)
Then they offered to turn Osama over to a neutral country for trial.
After the bombing started, they offered to turn over Osama with no conditions at all.
No dice. But 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban soldiers were allowed to fly out of Kunduz airport into Pakistan, with no interference from the USAF. And then Osama and 1600 al Qaeda were allowed to walk out of Tora Bora into Pakistan--even though the trail crossed a substantial highway which could have brought US troops in from Jalalabad. The US only bombed one of the trails.
So the USA refused to accept Osama. But then after invading ostensibly to get him, they let him go--along with 5500 soldiers.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Osama bin Laden did take credit for 9-11 on multiple occasions. Here's one:
with the English transcript from Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/archive/2004/11/200849163336457223.html
If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.
No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours...
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?
Osama may have briefly denied being involved in 9-11 shortly after when he was in fear for his life, but he did make it very clear that he was involved in 9-11.
yurbud
(39,405 posts)It kind of put the lie to the whole "War on Terror" right at the start.
If all the wars were really about punishing al Qaeda, that could have been game, set, match--but Bush wanted to keep 9/11 an open wound.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Whatever. A few more points about Tora Bora.
1. There were more journalists there than US troops.
2. Representatives of the warlords the US hired to guard the way out were seen in hotel lobbies in Jalalabad by a reporter from the Christian Science Monitor. The warlords' reps were selling letters of passage to al Qaeda agents.
3. "Dalton Fury" wrote that several attack plans were presented by Delta Force, and every one was vetoed by the brass.
4. The Brits have a story about trailing Osama out of Tora Bora. They claimed they were right behind him and stepped aside to let American troops have the honor of capturing him. The Americans let him go.
5. According to a Fox News analyst, Col. David Hunt, US forces had a 70% sure bead on Osama in 2007 and let him go.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)The one Rumsfield's PR group published? This reminded of really old PopSci renderings of Nazi secret defense systems
<https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSK8XnE3cEDdu16o5jDCyP-h62tWD5KO0Afj7VOD2fejl6-ONyOkQ>
<http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/bin-ladens-mountain-fortress.bmp>
Just so much misinfo/propaganda by that administration to get their war started...but then let them escape.
For some reason, I can't get this to publish from Google, but it's there when I Google "Al Qaeda hideout in Torra Borra"
yurbud
(39,405 posts)not enough to hide your tank full of sharks with lasers on their heads.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)to read the Intelligence Report after so many years is very telling. Either they didn't want to know...or their Lobbyist and Big Donors made sure that it wasn't in their interests to "go into that room and take the time to read the intelligence about 9/11."
It's shameful.
Omaha Steve
(99,610 posts)
polynomial
(750 posts)America is in the act of grasping or seizing the moment of truth about 911. It is not a conspiracy theory it is a real happening covered up with the same excuse the National Security Agency keeps Metadata secret. These secrets are a cover up simply for the profiteering involved. People got rich at the expense of the electorate. The media as key players in what American is entangled in as tragedy in law and order.
Senator Bob Graham is on the edge of telling America the real story and where to look to find out more. Snowden likely does have enough metadata files to not only connect high level political business people but military with deep foreign participation. As Bush and Cheney profiteered it is very compelling from an insider view as being too big to fail with good reason to get in the action. It is now easy to see from an outside view that minimally the whole Iraq war was a lie. It is even reported by many in the media as a lie. However, no one in the media has the courage or can openly be honest because of the media muzzle.
It is all tied together with very prominent high level very well liked senior members of Congress, the Senate, Judiciary, Military, Business, Banking, Wall Street, and especially Mainstream Media. Did I leave anything out? Yes, those secret mercenary types, or even former CIA, FBI, NSA, you name it for any American, foreign agency, if the money is there and it is someone will fill the job.
This was long time to formulate it did not happen over-night. Even when 911 first happened I believed Bush. Then after some of my own research reading independent authors and articles, especially Gerald Posners book Secrets of the Kingdom or Russ Bakers Family Secrets, anyone can see the money and family connection Bush had with the Bin Laden family, Cheney too. Today the media is still muzzled not to talk about decades long relation with Arab money. Too big to fail penetrates the banking system it is loaded with the real reason America failed the electorate because of foreign influence with Congress and Senate people getting rich while America suffers decline.
2banon
(7,321 posts)But I don't see it happening anytime soon. What did I miss with regard to Senator Bob Graham? Have I missed some recent interviews or perhaps writings he's authored on the subject? I'm curious as to why you think he's on the verge (finally) of publicly revealing what he knows.
I'm still surprised he's still alive to tell you the truth.
BelgianMadCow
(5,379 posts)But here it is again:
Thread with all three videos of the full interview here.
You'll note that he basically says: "Whatever I can't say, I've written as a fiction book." That book is called Keys to the Kingdom.
I haven't read it, but here's an excerpt, note that Governor Billington happens to be a retired senator from Florida that sat on an intelligence committee, like Graham, iow Billington = Graham. Billington writes the following as an Op-Ed in the book:
I think Bob Graham is trying to tell us something.
2banon
(7,321 posts)last night he had some war mongering clown (didn't catch his name) besmirching Obama's Syrian policy, and pining for the good old days when our ties with Saudi Arabia were sacrosanct and that Obama is doing such a poor job on the INTL front because of it, and how it needs to be mended ASAP etc etc etc..
banging away at the need to attack Syria and Iran. Rose could hardly contain his outrage on the situation, cherry picking NYT reports etc.. I had to wipe HIS spittle off of my tv screen.
PBS and a couple of local networks are the only tv channels I pick up on my digital tv antenna. I am loath to ever watch his shows, but I was busy with other matters and his show follows the News Hour, just another neo con propaganda media apparatus, and so I accidently picked up on it. it was very very disturbing.
I've nearly forgotten all about The RealNews, and I thank you for providing this link again, having missed it up thread.
I wonder if there's a call for Rose to have Graham on his show, seems like it would be timely if nothing else at the very least. I'm not a media activist anymore, this could inspire me to re-engage myself if only there were others to join the ranks, so to speak.
In any event, the 9/11 financial ties with Saudi Arabia should be blasted everywhere, and the direct connection to current events be made crystal clear everywhere post haste.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...Click Here
2banon
(7,321 posts)First time I've heard of it, looks like a really deep rabbit hole..
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Here's a good starting place. ...Indira Singh
Berlum
(7,044 posts)
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
JEB
(4,748 posts)years ago. Keep pushing for the cleansing power of sunlight. Secrecy is the mark of a fascist government.
El Shaman
(583 posts)Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Bush: Truly not concerned about bin Laden (short version)
<
6 months after 9/11....
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Howard's been silent too long.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)every Republican politician, every RW media outlet, and every lamestream media outlet would be demanding a complete investigation and impeachment. They would not have accepted Obama's word and a slow-walked, underfunded investigation led by Rahm Emmanuel 2 years later.
The fact that Obama can't or won't revisit 9/11 is telling...these people still wield the real political power, even if they don't hold the office.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...this is exactly why it happened under whose watch it happened, along with the resultant "extra-Constitutional" agenda which would never have been tolerated -- had the opposing party tried to pull it off.
Soundman
(297 posts)I'm not much of a c t theorist but I do believe there was a cover up but not for the reasons most suspect.
At any rate I have worked on a paper that is far too long to post here and still not quite completed, here are my thoughts about "controlled demo."
I will put forth my theory in the form of a question. How many people would it take to bring down the buildings dressed as firemen wearing explosives that were disguised as air cylinders?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 10, 2013, 05:12 PM - Edit history (1)
... a few failing truss anchors would cause an entire floor to "unzip" and this would initiate a progressive "pancake" collapse.
So I'd suggest that one guy with one tank could carry in enough explosives or thermite cutting charges to do the job by that mechanism for each building. But of course explosives could also have been smuggled in inside copy machines, office furniture, cases of paper, construction materials such as drywall mud or paint or fireproofing compound, construction tools such as air compressors.
Dr. Van Romero opined that a few charges in a few key places could bring the entire building down. He didn't put a number on it and didn't identify the places.
I'm not aware that any serious study has ever been done of how many charges it would take. Many of the controlled demolition theorists may be inclined to exaggerate the complexity of the project because some of them clearly like the idea of a vast conspiracy with unfettered access to the buildings.
Food for thought:
Most of the main structural columns in the towers were accessible for most of their length from inside the towers' 15 miles of elevator hoistways. During the 9 months before 9/11 a massive elevator renovation project was going on, so the presence of parties unknown in the elevator shafts would not have been particularly noteworthy. On the morning of 9/11, 80 of these elevator mechanics gathered in the lobby. They knew people were trapped in elevators. They knew the people could not get out because the mechanics had themselves just installed interlock devices to prevent people from opening the doors for themselves. And yet in spite of the fact that elevator mechanics have a culture of doing rescue operations, all of these 80-something guys ran away. Not one of them died on 9/11. I'm not suggesting that they planted bombs. I am suggesting that possibly they sensed that something was not right--perhaps they'd heard noises or seen lights or found evidence of work going on when they weren't there. They should be interviewed.
NIST claims that WTC7 fell down after part of the 13th floor fell down and initiated a chain reaction. FEMA tells us that floors 14, 15, 16, and 17 were vacant.
mitty14u2
(1,015 posts)wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Valentine:
The federal authorities came in and grabbed up all of the records of the flight school.
Hopsicker:
That's right. They flew them out on a plane that also had Jeb Bush aboard.
Valentine:
The federal authorities told the local law enforcement authorities to keep their noses out of the investigation, didn't they?
Hopsicker:
That's correct. I sat down with two Southern lawmen, a current sheriff and his immediate predecessor. These two guys looked me dead in the eye and said that, based on what they have seen with a lot of CIA-connected covert operations in the area, the CIA was somehow involved in, if not responsible for, the World Trade Center attacks.
BlueToTheBone
(3,747 posts)escapade where he jumped right in to go to war.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)But the White House never let it see an entire section of Congress’ investigative report on 9/11 dealing with “specific sources of foreign support” for the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals.
It was kept secret and remains so today.
President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report. Text isn’t just blacked-out here and there in this critical-yet-missing middle section. The pages are completely blank, except for dotted lines where an estimated 7,200 words once stood (this story by comparison is about 1,000 words).
A pair of lawmakers who recently read the redacted portion say they are “absolutely shocked” at the level of foreign state involvement in the attacks.
Reps. Walter Jones (R-NC) and Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.) can’t reveal the nation identified by it without violating federal law. So they’ve proposed Congress pass a resolution asking President Obama to declassify the entire 2002 report, “Joint Inquiry Into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001.”
http://nypost.com/2013/12/15/inside-the-saudi-911-coverup/
The American people deserve to know whats in that report.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Chair of congressional joint committee on 9/11 'Senator Bob Graham talks of the Saudis involvment with 911'
911 Commissioner Bob Kerrey claims 911 was a 30 year conspiracy
Max Cleland on the '9/11 Commission Deals'
Comissioners 'Lee Hamilton And Tom Kean Say 9/11 Commission Was Set Up To Fail'
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)getting revenge on selfish, right-wing, bloodsucking parasites in the in the US. Anyone that was paying attention before 9-11 knew that there was a very good chance that we could be struck by a major terrorist attack. Our foreign policy sucks. Our government treats many people in poorer nations like crap. This is what often motivates terrorist attacks.
Osama was very clear on why he attacked: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014667635#post129
Saudi Arabia (Israel is the other) is one of two major phony allies that the US has in the Middle East. They both can get away with crap, but nations that do us no harm get targeted. It's all about money and powerful special interests. That's how governments often work. It's basic corruption.
The Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq. Various members of our government had their own selfish agendas, but the reasons included: weakening Iraq to benefit Israel, oil profits, power, profits for the MIC, campaign contributions for reelection, job prospects for post government careers, etc.
Iraq made a convenient and profitable target where various interests converged. If Saudi Arabia became the focus their dastardly plans to attack Iraq could be thwarted.
WTC 7 has nothing to do with anything, except for the fact that it was severely damaged and started on fire by the falling North Tower. CT'ers don't understand how governments (or science) work. The CT nonsense distracts us from why we were attacked and what we should do to improve our government's behavior.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...however I'd first like to talk about the short videos I posted in #239. Please view them if you haven't already, and share your thoughts.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)not surprising. Kerry saying 9/11 was a 30 year conspiracy then walks away. WTF!
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Thus far no backers of the gov. story have had the courage to address post #239. I know they've seen it, because they've jumped all over the posts where there was any wiggle room at all to present their case.
Don't you think that anyone with a modicum of open-mindedness would be compelled to revisit the events of 9/11 and the "official" narrative of events if they knew what some of the "officials" knew?
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)some of those same members for years and nothing changes. I admire your persistence & patience. I don't waste time much with the same old ones as I know they wouldn't change their argument no matter what. But anyone with half a brain knows 9/11 was very suspicious and served it's purpose like the PNACers wanted along with many more fascists.
Great posts too btw...
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)I believe in the opposite of the "big lie."
If you tell the truth long enough, some people are going to believe it.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)and the bigger the lie, the easier it is to convince the public.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)with Saudi Arabia. Or what we should think of Bush/Cheney in light of that info. Obviously, somebody/some group at the top believes the American people might not take this redacted info well, so now we're left hanging. LIHOP, MIHOP, treason? How can the Obama administration PLAUSIBLY keep this covered up?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The conservative French newspaper Le Figaro claimed that Osama bin Laden met with the head of Saudi Security, Prince Turki al Faisal, a couple of months before 9/11 at the American Hospital in Dubai.
After Ambassador Prince "Bandar Bush" left his post in DC, Prince Turki became the Ambassador to the USA.
Response to Indi Guy (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)Issued this month by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the decision involves a high-profile case filed a decade ago by 9/11 victims who claim Saudi Arabia financed Al Qaeda before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. A federal judge in New York decided that, as a foreign state, Saudi Arabia was immune and could not be named as a defendant under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This spared it the possibility of having to dole out billions in civil damages.
Citing an “error of law,” the appellate court restored the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as a defendant...
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, Indi Guy.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Just Stumbled Upon this:
"
The CIA has issued legal threats against two film producers who have discovered intimate details of a cover up regarding the intelligence agency and two of the purported 9/11 hijackers.
Ray Nowosielski and John Duffy, the producers of the popular 9/11 documentary '9/11 Press for Truth', were contacted by the CIA last week on September 8th regarding extensive research, interviews and findings that have led them to discover the identities of two key CIA analysts who were instrumental in the conspiracy.
The film's producers initially only referred to the CIA analysts by their first names, but expressed their intention to later reveal their full identities in a forthcoming "investigative podcast", which seemingly prompted the agency to step in.
"While producing our investigative podcast "Who Is Rich Blee?," intended to be released on Sunday, our team managed to deduce the likely identities of two CIA employees at the heart of a notorious failure in the run up to the September 11th tragedy." a statement reads on the producer's website, which was offline for most of yesterday.
"On Thursday, we submitted our script to CIA along with a request to interview the two employees," the statement continues. "We wanted to be fair in giving them a chance to tell their sides of the story. Instead, the Agency sent us a message threatening that if we went forward with the names included in the piece that it would be a potential violation of federal criminal law."
Duffy and Nowosielski also interviewed former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, who told them on the record that he has intelligence that three former top CIA officials -- George Tenet, Cofer Black and Richard Blee -- knowingly withheld key information on the alleged hijackers from the White House, the FBI, Immigration and the State and Defense Departments."
more linked here.
Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...only Dick Cheney can divulge the name of a CIA agent & get away with it.
But seriously, while the ethics of certain elements at the top of the agency are highly questionable at best -- wisdom (and the law) dictates that the names of agents should remain anonymous. I have to give this one to the spooks.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)Indi Guy
(3,992 posts)...and Michael Sheuer makes some sense as well. I believe that most of the CIA's people are good honest patriots; and the few really bad apples seem to be at the very top.
What is transparently clear is that The 9/11 Commission Omission, led by Bush crony Philip Zelikow, was designed to obfuscate rather than uncover the truth. Check out Judge Napolitano's feelings about Zelikow's credibility at the end of this clip.
Note that Kissinger was Bush's first pick to head the commission, but was shamed into stepping down after he was asked by a 9/11 family member if he'd ever had any business dealings with the bin Ladens.
wildbilln864
(13,382 posts)they should have asked Bush whether he'd had too.